In the early 4th century CE, Eusebius recorded a brief note stating that Nicopolis and Caesarea had been destroyed by an earthquake around 130 CE. Although possible tsunamigenic evidence of this event has been reported at Caesarea, no comparable archaeoseismic evidence has yet been identified at Nicopolis (Emmaus).

The details of Eusebius’ account have been debated. Ambraseys (2009) proposed that Eusebius erred in location, while Russell (1985) argued that he misdated the event. The surviving copy of Eusebius’ Chronicon does not cite a source, leaving open the possibility that his information was based on a chronological or translational error—perhaps a mistranslation from regnal years of Roman emperors into the Olympiad system. As noted in Roger Pearse’s preface to the online edition of the Chronicon, regnal dating was standard practice before Eusebius introduced his own chronological framework. If Eusebius or his source assigned the wrong emperor, the date could easily shift into the range of Russell (1985)’s proposed 110–114 CE date for the Incense Road Earthquake. This possibility is discussed further in the Textual Evidence section under Eusebius. Even if Eusebius’ date was correct, it should be taken as approximate: Elias of Nisibis placed the same earthquake about three years earlier, and, as Ambraseys (2009) observed, Eusebius’ chronology for this period is occasionally off by a few years.

It is also worth noting that Russell (1985)’s dating of the Incense Road Earthquake between 100 and 114 CE may overstate the archaeological evidence. If the event actually occurred closer to 130 CE, the so-called Eusebius Mystery Quake might represent the same earthquake, resolving the chronological discrepancy entirely.